Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV32240, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV32240 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff Jenna
Suhl’s motion to quash is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
Legal
Standard
When a subpoena has been issued
requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents,
electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the
taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party,
the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, or upon the
court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard,
may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing
compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court may specify.
(See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.)
There is
no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration
demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See id.)
The court can make an order quashing or
modifying a subpoena as necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or
oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
1987.1, subd. (a).)
Under Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn.
(1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37, the party asserting a privacy right must establish
a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of
privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.
(Id.) The party seeking the information may raise in response whatever
legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the
party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same
interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A
court must then balance these competing considerations. (Id. at 37–40.)
Discussion
Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena for
Plaintiff’s employment records, arguing that Defendant’s subpoena is
impermissibly overbroad, seeking “any and all” records related to Plaintiff’s
employment and payroll, and violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
On July
13, 2022, Defendant served a deposition subpoena for production of business
records to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Stoker Decl. ¶ 5). The subpoena seeks
production of all employment and payroll records pertaining to Plaintiff. (Id.)
Specifically, the subject subpoena requests the following:
“Any and all documents and records pertaining to the
employment and earnings of the individual named herein, including without
limitation, all payroll, applications for employment, resumes, reference
letters, interview notes and statements, correspondence, work absentee records,
incident reports, pre-employment records including exam results, employee
progress reports/evaluations, medical benefits, work history records and work
injury records, W-2’s, workers compensation claims records, complaints and grievances,
disciplinary action taken, promotions/demotions from the first date of
employment up to and including the present.”
(Stoker
Decl., Exh. A.)
In Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, Plaintiff
requested the subpoena be limited to only Plaintiff’s timesheet and payroll
records, however, Defendant failed altogether to respond to this proposal. (Id.,
Exh. C.)
California’s Constitutional right to privacy protects
against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive
information regarding one’s personal life. (Britt v. Superior
Court
(1978)20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) This includes
employment records. (See Board of Trustees v.
Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 526 (“It seems manifest, and we observe no contrary contention,
that personnel, tenure, and promotion records and files relate to the private
affairs of Dr. Lucas, and are maintained in confidence by the University.”); See also, id., at 526 (“It is manifest
that the subject documents and communications of Dr. Dong's personnel, tenure,
and promotion files, whether relating only to his initial employment, or also
to his “promotion, additional compensation, or termination,” were communicated
to the University in confidence, and were thus covered by the communicators'
constitutional right of privacy.”); El Dorado Savings & Loan Assn. v.
Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 342, 345 (“plaintiffs acknowledge the
personnel records of petitioner Morris are protected by the right of
privacy.”).) “The public interest in preserving confidential, personnel
information generally outweighs a private litigant's interest in obtaining that
information.” (Life
Technologies Corp. v. Superior Court
(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652, disapproved on different grounds by Williams
v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531.) An employee’s personnel records concerning when and why
the employee was fired have a legally protected privacy interest, and
disclosure of the records may implicate a threatened intrusion into privacy
that is serious. (Id.) And a person is privileged to withhold disclosure
of their taxpayer information. (Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71
Cal.App.3d 141, 142-144 [finding plaintiff’s W-2 tax forms were subject to
privilege protecting taxpayer information from disclosure despite defendants’
claim they were relevant to lost wages].)
As cited above, Plaintiff’s employment
records are protected by the right to privacy, and Plaintiff has an objectively
reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances.
As to the next Hill factor, Defendant seeks this subpoena because
Plaintiff is pursuing a $60,000 loss of earnings claim, and argues that no
evidence has been produced to support Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant
argues that Plaintiff initially only had a short period of time missed from
work after the subject accident and then was able to continue working for
Savage X Fenty for a year and three months between October 21, 2019 and
January 13, 2021. Whether plaintiff stopped working for Savage X Fenty on
January 13, 2021, and continued with no work at all for the next full year, as
a result of the subject accident versus any other reasons is a disputed fact in
this litigation. Thus, Defendant argues Plaintiff has put her employment status
and earnings in controversy in this litigation. Defendant continues that these
records will have documents that show how she was doing at the job and whether
that supports a claim that her employment there would continue, show an
alternate reason for her failure to continue working for the company (such as
the Covid-19 pandemic or any other reason), establish how she was paid, show
how much she was paid and many other issues related to her wage loss claim.
However, it is not clear how Plaintiff’s applications for
employment, resumes, reference letters, interview notes and statements,
correspondence, pre-employment records including exam results, medical
benefits, work history records and work injury records, or workers compensation
claims records, would provide supporting evidence for the loss of earnings
claim. Similarly, Plaintiff offered to limit the subpoena for timesheet and
payroll records, and therefore, has offered a less intrusive means to this
discovery, but Defendant never responded. As such, the Court finds that the
subpoena is overbroad to the
extent the scope of records includes non-wage related documents. Moreover,
Plaintiff’s W-2 tax forms are subject
to privilege protecting taxpayer information from disclosure despite
defendants’ claim they were relevant to lost wages. (Brown v. Superior Court
(1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 142-144.)
Plaintiff has not
requested sanctions against Defendant, and thus, the Court will not impose any
against Defendant.
Defendant requests
sanctions against Plaintiff under CCP section 2023.010 for the “misuse of discovery.” However, CCP
section 2023.010 does not independently authorize the trial court
to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers,
LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.) Moreover, the Court finds
there was no misuse of discovery here as discussed above.
The
Court notes Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with this subpoena set for
November 13, 2023 is now moot and should be taken off calendar.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is
DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.